See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257389576

Design of macro-synthetic fibre reinforced

concrete pipes

Article in Construction and Building Materials June 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.036

CITATIONS READS

19 279

4 authors:

Albert De la Fuente Renata Escariz

Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya University of So Paulo
96 PUBLICATIONS 388 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Antonio D. Figueiredo Antonio Aguado

University of So Paulo Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya
107 PUBLICATIONS 142 CITATIONS 263 PUBLICATIONS 1,757 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Spalling of concrete exposed at high temperatures View project

Studies about thermal effects on physical, mechanical and microstructural properties of concrete
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Albert De la Fuente on 23 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Designofmacrosyntheticfibrereinforcedconcretepipes

AlbertdelaFuentea,*,RenataC.Escarizb,AntonioD.deFigueiredob,AntonioAguadoa,

aDepartmentofConstructionEngineering,UniversitatPolitcnicadeCatalunya,UPC,JordiGirona13,08034Barcelona,Spain.
DepartmentofConstructionEngineering,UniversidadeSaoPaulo,USP.
b

*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+34934016515;fax:+34934011036;email:albert.de.la.fuente@upc.edu

ABSTRACT
This paper presents an experimental campaign in which concrete pipes were manufactured using plastic fibres as the sole
reinforcement material. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that the use of plastic fibres is compatible with pipe production
systems,andthat,whensubjectedtothecrushingtest(CT),plasticfibrereinforcedpipesyieldstrengthclassesthatareattractivein
termsofthegrowthofthismaterialintheconcretepipeindustry.Moreover,theresultsobtainedfromthecharacterisationofthe
material and the tensile behaviour of the pipes have been used to verify that the Model for the Analysis of Pipes (MAP) is an
appropriatetoolforthedesignofsuchpipes.Finally,thispaperpresentsadirectdesignmethodologybasedontheuseoftheMAP.
This methodology can be used to estimate the quantity of fibres needed to reach the strength classes set out in EN 1916:2002,
withouthavingtoresorttotheCTasanindirectdesignmethod.

Keywords:
ConcretePipes;CrushingTest;Design;Durability;FRC;PlasticFibres

INTRODUCTION
Theuseofsteelbarreinforcedconcretepipes(SBRCP)withinternaldiameters(Di)ofupto3000mm
indrainagesystemsisacommonpracticethatisattractivefrombothatechnicalandeconomicpointof
view [12]. However, in recent years, a Di segment traditionally dominated by concrete pipe (CP)
manufacturers has moved towards the plastic pipe (PP) market. Plastic pipes offer a number of
constructiveadvantagesandperformbetterintermsofsustainability[3].
Inviewofthissituation,CPmanufacturershavebeguntoproposealternativestotheexistingproducts.
Amongthese,oneattractiveoptionthatismakingheadwayintheindustryistheuseofstructuralfibresas
apartialortotalsubstituteoftherebarsforconcrete.Fortunately,standardsregulatingtheuseoffibre
reinforcedconcrete(FRC)inpipemanufacturingarealreadyinexistence,theprimarystandardbeingEN
1916:2002[4]andtherestbeingnationaladaptationsthereof(BSEN1916:2002[5]intheUK,UNEEN
1916:2008[6]inSpainandABNTNBR8890:2007[7]inBrazil).AlsotobeconsideredistheAustralian
standardAS4139:2003[8]relatingtotheuseoffibres,whichpresentsaspecificclassificationofpipesas
afunctionoftheirstiffness.Despitethefactthatseveralexperimentalcampaigns[914]haveprovedthe
technicalviabilityoffibrereinforcement,forvariousreasons[15]itsusehasnotyetbecomewidespread.
ThegreatesthindrancetotheexpansionofFRCinCPsisprobablythattheabovementionedstandards
establishneitherthetypenortheguidevaluesforthequantityoffibres(Cf)neededtofulfilthestrength
requirements set out in the design project. Neither do said standards include calculation criteria or
nomogramsallowingforthedeductionofCfvalues.Thismeansthatmanufacturershavetoresorttothe
crushingtest(CT,seeFig.1a)inordertocarryoutanindirectdesignofthefibrereinforcedconcretepipes
(FRCPs)throughatrialanderrorsystem.Thisstrategyisinefficientgiventhatvarioustypesoffibresare
alreadypresentonthemarket,andanumberofstrengthclassesandgeometriesareavailable.Ultimately,
thelackofarationaldesignmethodhassloweddowntheimplementationofFRCinconcretepipesandits
establishmentonthemarket.
Withaviewtosolvingthisproblem,anumberofexperimentalcampaignswerecarriedoutinvolving
the manufacture and testing of steel fibre reinforced concrete pipes (SFRCP) with Di between 600 mm
[16]and1000mm[17].Inaddition,thefoundationsoftheModelfortheAnalysisofPipes(MAP)were
presented and compared with the experimental results obtained of said campaigns. The conclusions
drawnfromthesestudieswerethattheuseofsteelfibresinpipeswithDiofupto1000mmisviableand
can lead to technical and economic advantages as compared to SBRCPs. Moreover, the proposed design
methodology,basedontheuseoftheMAP,provedtobeanexcellenttoolintermsofprovidingaccurate
estimatesoftheCfneededtofulfilthestrengthrequirementsoncethetypeoffibre,theDiofthepipeand
itsthickness(h)hadbeenestablished.AsaresultofusingtheabovedesignstrategyforSFRCPs,theCT
canbeusedasacontrolmethodandnotnecessarilyasanindirectdesignmethod.
It is, however, important to note that the fluids being transported will often have a high level of
aggressiveness, in which case the use of steel fibres is not advised. One alternative is the use of


polypropylenefibres;theseareresistanttopotentialchemicalattacksandspecificenvironmentsthatcan
occur,andthereforeguaranteedurabilityandstructuralintegritythroughouttheirservicelife.However,
therearenoknownpublishedexperimentalcampaignsonpolypropylenefibrereinforcedconcretepipes
(PFRCPs) within the technical literature that validate the suitability of the use of polypropylene fibre
reinforcedconcrete(PFRC)inpipes.Neitherarethereanyknowndesignstrategiesforthistypeofpipes.

(a)
Spreadingbeam



Ridge

R

h



Springline G
Di Do
F S

FuFn (b)
Invert


Fc

t
Supports
1min 1min

Fig.1(a)Crushingtestand(b)loadpatternestablishedforthecrushingtestintheEN1916:2002[4].

In keeping with the line of investigation put forward in previous studies on SFRCPs [1218], the
PolytechnicUniversityofCatalonia(UPC)andtheUniversityofSoPaulo(USP),jointlywithacompany
fromtheCPindustry,haveledanexperimentalcampaignontheuseofPFRCinpipeswithDiof1000mm
[15].Thiscampaignaimedto:(1)verifythatCPproductionsystemsarecompatiblewiththeuseofPFRC,
(2) verify that PFRC is a viable substitute for traditional reinforcement in some of the most common
strengthclasses(seeTable1)and(3)demonstrate,onthebasisoftheexperimentalresults,thattheMAP
isalsoanappropriatetoolforthedirectdesignofPFRCPs.

Table1.StrengthclassesforreinforcedconcretepipesaccordingtoEN1916:2002[4].
C60 C90 C135 C180

Fc(kN/m2) 40 60 90 120

Fn(kN/m2) 60 90 135 180


Theaimofthispaperisthereforetwofold:firstlytopresentandanalyseboththeresultsobtainedin
thecharacterisationofthePFRCusedforthemanufactureofthePFRCPsandtheirresponsesintheCT,
andsecondlytodemonstratethattheMAPcanbeusedtosimulatethemechanicalbehaviourofPFRCPsin
theCT.Moreover,onthebasisoftheabove,asetofequationsanddesigntables,adaptedtoastandard
typeofpolypropylenefibre,willbeproposedandwillallowCPmanufacturerstoanalysetheviabilityof
PFRCasanalternativetotraditionalreinforcement.


CRUSHINGTESTFORFIBREREINFORCEDCONCRETEPIPES
CrushingtestaccordingtoEN1916:2002
The crushing test (see Fig. 1) was originally conceived with a view to the design and mechanical
control of unreinforced concrete pipes (UCPs) and SBRCPs in plants [19]. The test provides valuable
information on the structural response of the pipe, both during service and cracking regime. This


informationcanguidethedesignofthereinforcementrequiredforbearingtheserviceloadstowhichis
subjectedinthefinalworkingconfiguration[48].
ThesametestmethodologyisputforwardinEN1916:2002[4]forthemechanicalcontrolofFRCPs.
However, for these, the loading sequence is modified in order to evaluate their response in postfailure
regime.
The test methodology consists of applying a uniformly distributed longitudinal load on the upper
generatrix of the pipe, which is supported by two strips (see Fig. 1a). It should be noted that two
representative values are established toserve asa controlforthemechanical response of the pipe (see
Table1).Bothvalueswilldependonthetargetstrengthclass,FcbeingthetestloadandFntheminimum
load that the pipe must bear in failure regime. Regarding the load pattern set out in Fig. 1b, it must be
verifiedthat:
1. ThepiperesistsloadFcforoneminutewithoutreachingcrackingload(Fcr).Giventhatthefirstcrack
usuallyappearsattheridgeofthepipe,hereinafteritwillbeconsideredthatFc=Fc,cr,Fc,cr beingthe
crackingloadofthepiperidge.
2. Thefailureloadofthepipe(Fu)isatleastFn.
3. OnceloadFuisreached,loadFcmustberesistedduringoneminuteinpostfailureregime.
Thereareanumberofpointsitisimportanttonotewithregardtotherequirementsestablishedfor
FRCPs. The strength requirement in the first stage of the test (Fc < Fc,cr) is more restrictive than that
establishedforSBRCPs,thatis,crackwidths(w)between0.2mmand0.3mmarepermittedinSBRCPs
(depending on the regulation) for the same Fc load established for the FRCPs. Translated to structural
response in service, this means that an FRCP must be designed in such a way that it works in elastic
regime throughout its service life, whereas an SBRCP may have cracks of a controlled width and,
therefore,workinserviceincrackedregime.
This philosophy is the consequence of a period during which there was still some uncertainty
surrounding certain behavioural aspects of cracked FRC subjected to sustained loads. Nevertheless, the
currentscenarioisdifferentandsuchaconservativeapproachhinderstheconsolidationoftheuseofFRC
in pipe manufacturing. In the same vein, it is well known that the use of the type and Cf of appropriate
fibres leads to improvements in the response of the structure against cracking [2021]. Moreover,
assessmentofthepostfailurebehaviourofthepiperesultsfromtheneedtoguaranteeductilityandload
bearingcapacityintheeventofalocalorglobalfailureintheelement.Tothisend,contrarytoSBRCPs,
FRCPsaresubjectedtoanunloadingreloadingprocessonceFuhasbeenreached.
This unloadingreloading process is difficult to reproduce without a suitable measurement system
abletocontroldisplacements.ThisfactoroccasionallyleadstotherejectionoftheargumentthatFRCisa
viablealternativetotraditionalreinforcement.Fortunately,inoneoftheexperimentalcampaigns[14]it
wasdemonstratedthattheresultsoftheevaluationofpostfailureresponseinpipeswerenotsignificant
ofwhetherthetestswerecyclicalorcontinuous,thisbeingasignificantstepforwardinFRCPtechnology.

ModelfortheAnalysisofPipes(MAP)forthenumericalsimulationofthecrushingtest
ThehypothesesimplementedintheModelfortheAnalysisofPipes(MAP)wereestablishedin[1718]
and it was agreed that the MAP is an appropriate tool for simulating the CT in CP and SFRCPs,
demonstratingthatthemodelservesasaframeworkfortheoptimumdesignofthistypeofpipes.
Specifically,theMAPsimulatestheresponseofpipessubjectedtoboundaryconditionsimposedinthe
CT,consideringthatnonlinearphenomenaareconcentratedattheridge(R)andhaunchessections(S)
(Fig. 2), whereas the rest of the pipe behaves linearly [10] and [22]. In short, it consistsofa nonlinear
hingeanalysismodelencompassingthe3followingstages:
Globalelasticlinearbehaviour(Stage1,seeFig.2a)untilthecrackingloadattheridgeFc,crisreached.
Linear behaviour with cracking at the ridge (Stage 2, see Fig. 2b). Upon detection of the first crack,
thereisalossofstiffness,whichactivatesthefirstplastichinge(R),whiletherestofthepiperesponds
elastically.Thisstagelastsuntilthecrackingloadisreachedatthehaunches(Fs,cr),thesectioninwhich
thesecondandfinalplastichinge(S)arefound.
Totalcrackingbehaviour(Stage3,seeFig.2c).Theresponseisgovernedbybothplastichinges,which
areconnectedbyacircumferencesectorthatbehaveselastically.


(a) F (b) F (c) F

R R R
MR MR MR

Rm Rm Rm

S S S
Rm o Rm Rm o o
F F F
MS MS MS
Fig.2.Structuralschemaforregimes(a)linear,(b)linearwithcrackinginRand(c)linearwithcrackinginRandinS.
ThesimulationofthemechanicalresponseoftheplastichingesisdealtwiththemodelcalledAnalysis
ofEvolutionarySections(AES)[23].ThismodelallowsforthediscretisationofhingesRandSinelements
of area type (dAc) and the obtainment of their strainstress behaviour (see Fig. 3a) by imposing
equilibriumequations(Eqs.1aand1b),compatibilityequations(Eq.2)andresolvingtheresultingsystem
ofequationsbyusingaNewtonRaphsontypeiterativemethod.

(a) Strains Stresses
(a) dAc
c,t
xn c(yc) c(c)

h yc 1 Next
G 2
yG Mext
FRC
c,b
b
c
fcm
(b)

0.7 , 1.6 /
0.45 , 0.01%
Ecm 0.37 , 2.5%
1 12.5
1.0 0.6 |12.5 60|
3 2 1 47.5
3 2.0 3.5 c
2
1
Fig.3.(a)Sectionaldiscretizationand(b)constitutiveequationstosimulatethestrainstressbehaviouroftheFRC.

1a

1b

, ,
, 2

The available constitutive equations put forward in the European standards to simulate the stress
strainbehaviourofFCRwereimplementedintheAESmodel[24].However,amongalloftheequationsfor
this study it was deemed appropriate to adopt the proposal in [25] (see Fig. 3b) to simulate tensile
strength,whilethecompressionresponseisdonewiththeconstitutiveequationproposedin[26].


Mechanicalresponseoffibrereinforcedconcretesubjectedtothecrushingtest
ThemechanicalresponseofapipeintheCTdependsonitsgeometry(Diandh,seeFig.2)andthetype
ofreinforcement.Withregardtothenatureofthereinforcement,inthecaseofanFRCP,thedetermining
variablesarethetypeandquantityoffibres(Cf)used.
Fig. 4 presents the qualitative curves for load (F) displacement at ridge (v) for the three types of
behaviour expected in a FRCP, considering increasing Cf values (CfA < CfB < CfC), and differentiating the
responses obtained through the continuous or cyclical test as well as those obtained with the MAP. It
shouldbenotedthatnumericalsimulationdetectsphenomenasuchassnapthroughs,whichoccurupon
reaching the cracking load at the ridge (Fc,cr) and haunches (Fs,cr) since the algorithm implemented is
basedonacontrolofdisplacements.However,theselossesofstiffnesswerenotdiscernibleinthetests
duetothefactthatthemeasurementsystemsusedwerenotsufficientlysensitivetodetectthesesudden
variationsthatoccuralmostinstantaneously.
Fpos=Fu

F
A F
Fs,cr=Fu B F Fs,cr C
Fr,cr=Fu Continuous
Fr,cr Fr,cr

MAP Continuous
MAP
Fs,cr Continuous Fpos
MAP
Fpos Cyclic
Cyclic
Cyclic
CfA CfB CfC
v v v
Fig.4.QualitativecurvesFvtodescribethebehaviourphasesofaFRCPintheCT.

Curves F v of Fig. 4 show the 3 stages of behaviour that are obtained during the course of the CT,
whichareoutlinedinFig.3:
Stage1.ElasticlinearbehaviourthroughouttheelementfromthestartofthetestuntilFr,crisreached.
The value of Fc,cr depends on the geometry of the pipe and on the flexural strength of the concrete
matrix(fct,fl),whichisvirtuallyindependentofCf[27].
Stage2.Theridgeofthepipeworksincrackedregimewhereastherestofthesectionsmaintaintheir
linearresponse.Duetothelossofstiffnessresultingfromcrackingandhyperstaticityofthesystem,
thereisaredistributionofmomentstowardsthehaunches[28].Inthisregard,asseeninthecurves
obtainedwithMAP,thelowertheCf,thesharperthesnapthroughandviceversa.Stage2endswhen
Fs,crisreached,allowingfortheclassificationofthebehaviouroftypeApipesifFs,cr doesnotreachthe
previousFr,crvalue,andtypeBorCpipesifFs,cr ishigherthanFr,cr.PipeswithtypeAbehaviourshow
aninfracriticalresponse[29],Fr,crbeingequaltoFu,whilethoseoftypesBandCshowasupracritical
response.
Stage3.OnceFs,crisreached,anothersnapthroughoccurs,leadingtopostfailureregime.Behaviours
suchassoftening(typesAandB)occurifCfislowormoderate,orhardening(typeC)ifCfishighin
relationtothepipedimensions.ItshouldbenotedthatinthecaseofFRCPsexhibitinghardeningafter
cracking,thevalueofloadFposisthehighestinthetestandcorrespondstoloadFuofthepipe.Aslearnt
fromsimulationscarriedoutwiththeMAP,thistypeofresponseisonlyobtainedwithhighCfvalues
thatareunattractivefromaneconomicpointofview.

EXPERIMENTALCAMPAIGN

Experimentalprocedure
SeveralsetsofpipeswithDiof1000mm,thicknesshof80mmandlengthlof1.5mwereproduced.
For this, polypropylene fibres in varying quantities were used in order to verify that the traditional
production systems are adapted to PFRC and that it is technically possible to reach moderate strength
classes without resorting to conventional reinforcement. Detailed information on the procedures and
results obtained can be found in [15]. Specifically, this involved the production of 10 pipes with
polypropylene macrofibres (PFRCPs) with quantities Cf of 3.0 kg/m3 (PFRCP3.0, 3 pipes), 4.0 kg/m3
(PFRCP4.0,4pipes)and5.5kg/m3(PFRCP5.5,3pipes),andinaddition3controlUCPs.Thegeometric


and mechanical properties of the fibres used are shown in Table 2 and the base dosage of concrete is
gatheredinTable3.

Table2.Geometricalandmechanicalpropertiesofpolypropylenefibresused.
Material ModifiedOlefin
Surfacetexture Continuouslyembossed
No.fibres/kg 37000
Length(lf)inmm 54
Equivalentdiameter(df)inmm 0,90
Density(df)inkg/m3 910 920
Youngmodulus(Ef)inN/mm2 10000
Tensilestrength(ff)inN/mm2 640

Table3.Materialdosagefortheconcretescasted.
Material Dosage (kg/m3)
PortlandCement 320
CrushedSand 780
CoarseAggregate 1200
Water/cementratio 0.350.41

All of the pipes were manufactured on the same day so as to minimise variations in the mechanical
properties due to aging of concrete. The vibrocompression method was employed to compact the
material.Thissystemenablestheuseofrelativelylowwater/cementratios(seeTable3)onaccountof
thehighvibrationenergyinvolvedintheoperation.
After demoulding each pipe, the wallthickness h and its total length (lt) were measured. Moreover,
afterafewhourshadpassed,cylindricalcoresweredrilledinordertocarryoutacountofthefibresand
findouttheirrealquantity(Cf,r).Table4showstheaveragevaluesofh,landCf,r (hm,lmandCfm,r)aswell
astheirvariationcoefficientsc.

Table4.Averagevaluesandvariationcoefficientofh,ltotandCf,r.
hm ch lm cl Cfm,r cCf,r
CDE
(mm) (%) (mm) (%) (kg/m3) (%)
PPFRCP3.0 87.9 6.1 1588 0.2 2.9 18.0
PPFRCP4.0 89.4 8.2 1601 0.7 3.9 18.6
PPFRCP5.5 87.9 8.5 1598 0.3 6.0 8.3

OnthebasisoftheresultspresentedinTable4itcanbeobservedthattherealdimensionsofthepipes
areslightlygreaterthanthoseoriginallyestablished(h=80mmandltot=1500mm).Likewise,itcanbe
observedthattheaverageCf,r valuesareclosetotheCfvaluesestablishedforpipesfromseriesPFRCP3.0
and PFRCP4.0, while for pipes from series PFRCP5.5, Cf,r is 9.1% higher than the control value (5.5
kg/m3).
Simultaneouslytotheproductionofthepipes,testspecimenswereproducedwiththesameaggregate
dosage used for the production of the pipes (see Table 2) but with different Cf values with a view to
obtainingtheuniaxialcompressivestrength(fc)incylindricalspecimens[30].Moreover,flexuralstrength
tests were carried out on notched prism test specimens measuring 600x150x150 m3 [31] in order to
estimatevaluesofproportionalitylimitresistance(fLOP)andresidualflexuralstrength(fRi)ofthedifferent
PFRCs.Theaveragevaluesoffc,FLOP,fR,1 andoffR,4 (fcm,FLOPm,fRm,1 andfRm,4,respectively)aregatheredin
Table5.
Table5.Averagevaluesandvariationcoefficientoffc,FLOP,fR,1andfR4.
C f fcm cfc FLOPm cFLOP fRm,1 cfR,1 fRm,4 cfR,4
(kg/m3) (mm) (%) (N/mm2) (%) (N/mm2) (%) (N/mm2) (%)
3.0 34.5 2.6 4.3 6.3 1.5 6.0 1.0 10.0
4.5 33.1 0.6 4.2 8.1 1.9 16.5 1.8 9.7
6.0 35.9 1.9 4.6 5.7 2.5 7.9 2.2 2.7

The results shown in Table 5 highlight that the FLOPm value is not dependent on Cf, but on the
propertiesofthecementmatrix.Ontheotherhand,thevaluesoffRm,1andfRm.4canbecorrelatedwithCf
andfRm,1respectively,therebyobtaininglinearregressionswithexcellentR2coefficientsthatcanbeused


forthedesignofFRCelements[3234].Inthisregard,Eq.3showstheratiofRm,1 Cf (R2=0.9915)andEq.
4showstheratiofRm,4fRm,1(R2=0.8601)forfibres(Table2)andtheconcretedosage(Table3)used.

, 0.334 0.493 3

, 0.849 , 4

Testresults
ThepipesweretestedintheCTwhentheconcreteaged28days(Fig.1),followingtheconfiguration
proposed in EN 1916:2002 [4] for the execution of the cyclical test. The displacement v was measured
using2LVDTsfittedatbothendsofthepipe,theaveragevalueofbothvmeasurementsbeingconsidered
asreferenceforfutureanalysis.Fig.5depictscurvesFvregisteredintheCTofthe10testedPFRCPs.The
valueofloadFshowninthecurvesisobtainedbydividingtheexperimentalvalueFbythelengthofthe
pipe (1.5 m) and by its inner diameter (1 m). During the UCPs testing no measurement of v was taken,
given that the failure of these pipes is brittle failure therefore there was a risk of damaging the
measurementdevices.

60 60
(a) P1 (b) P1
P2 P2
50 P3 50
P3

40 40

F (kN/m2)

F (kN/m2)

30 30


20 20


10 10


0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
v (mm) v (mm)
60
(c) P1

P2
50
P3

40
F (kN/m2)

30

20


10

0

0 4 2 6 8 10
v (mm)
Fig.5.Fvcurvesforthetested1000mmDiPFRCPs:a)3.0kg/m ,b)4.0kg/m andc)5.5kg/m3.
3 3

Themechanicalresponseofthepipesisofthesofteningtype.Likewise,ascanbeseeninTable6,the
valueofFumdecreasesslightlyasCfincreases.Thisphenomenoncouldbeattributedtothefactthatratio
a/cwasincreasedwithCfinordertoguaranteegoodworkabilityofthemixinthemixerand,therefore,
couldinfluencethetensilestrength(fct)ofthecementmatrix.Ontheotherhand,theresultsillustratedin
Fig.5andTable6provethatthePFRCPspresentbetterpostfailureperformanceasCfincreases.Thisisa
behaviourthathadalreadybeenidentifiedintheSFRCPsshownin[17]and[18].
ItisimportanttoemphasisethatthevariationcoefficientsobtainedforFuandFposarerelativelylow
(maximumvalueof6.0%andof9.8%forcFuandcFpos,respectively,asshowninTable6)incomparison
withthevariationoftheresidualflexuralstrength(cfR,4),whichreachesvaluesofupto16.5%(Table5).
This phenomenon has already been observed in other structural elements [24] and [34] and can be
explained by the fact that the real scale cracks in the structures are longer than those obtained in FRC


tensioncharacterisationtest[34].Theeffectofthisisthat,inrealstructures,thevariabilityofparameters
suchfibreorientationandCflosetheirrelativeweightintheglobalresponse,beingtheaveragevaluesof
theseparametersofgreaterrelevanceincomparisonwiththelocalones.

Tabla6.AveragevaluesandvariationcoefficientofFuandFpos.
Fu(KN/m2) Fpos(KN/m2)
CDIGO
P1 P2 P3 P4 Fum cFu(%) P1 P2 P3 P4 Fposm cFpos(%)
UCP 50.7 55.3 57.1 55.3 6.0
PPFRCP3.0 50.0 53.3 53.3 52.2 3.7 24.0 21.3 26.0 23.8 9.8
PPFRCP4.0 52.0 49.3 48.7 46.0 49.0 5.0 28.0 25.3 26.7 22.7 25.7 8.9
PPFRCP5.5 48.7 50.0 49.3 49.3 1.4 32.0 32.0 30.7 31.6 2.4

COMPARISIONBETWEENEXPERIMENTALANDNUMERICALRESULTS

WithaviewtoverifyingthattheMAPisanappropriatetoolforsimulatingthebehaviourofPFRCPsin
the CT and for the design of this type of pipes, the results obtained experimentally are contrasted with
those deduced numerically using the MAP. The numerical simulations have been carried out in
considerationoftheaveragedimensions(hmandlm)andrealaveragequantitiesoffibres(Cfm,r)shownin
Table4.Moreover,Eqs.3and4havebeenadoptedinordertoobtainfRm,1andfRm,4values,andthrough
these,thoseofiandiaimingatsimulatingthetensilestrengthoftheFRC(Fig.3b).
Table 7 gathers the parameters used to generate constitutive equations of the tensioned FRC, while
Table8containstheexperimentalandnumericalvaluesobtainedforthedifferentPFRCPstested,being
the relative error (positive values indicate that the experimental result is higher than that obtained
numericallyandviceversa).

Table7.ValuesofianditodefinetheconstitutiveequationofthetensionedPFRC(seeFig.6).
Cf,r fRm,1 fRm,3 Ecm 1 1 2 2 3 3
CDIGO
(kg/m3) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) () (N/mm2) () (N/mm2) ()
UCP 0.0 0.493 0.419 31075 5.586 0.180 0.234 0.280 0.164 25.000
PFRCP3.0 2.9 1.462 1.241 31075 5.586 0.180 0.695 0.280 0.485 25.000
PFRCP4.0 3.9 1.796 1.524 31075 5.586 0.180 0.854 0.280 0.596 25.000
PFRCP5.5 6.0 2.497 2.120 31075 5.586 0.180 1.188 0.280 0.829 25.000

Table8.ExperimentalandnumericalvaluesofFuandFpos.
Experimental SimulationwithMAP
Fu Fpos
Fum Fposm Fu Fpos (%) (%)
CDIGO
(kN/m2) (kN/m2)

UCP 55.3 48.0 13.2

PFRCP3.0 52.2 23.8 48.0 22.7 8.0 4.8
PFRCP4.0 49.0 25.7 48.0 26.6 2.0 3.4
PFRCP5.5 49.3 31.6 48.0 33.1 2.6 4.5

BasedontheresultsshowninTable8itfollowsthat:

AccordingtotheMAP,thetypeoffailureofthetestedpipesresultsfromanAtypebehaviour(seeFig.
4),giventhatthevalueofFudoesnotvaryasafunctionoftheCfofthepipe,andinallcasescoincides
withthevalueofthecrackingloadattheridge(Fcr,c).Inthisregard,theMAPhasbeenfoundtoyield
values on the side of safety for Fu, the maximum value of Fu being equal to 13.2% (UCP) and the
minimum value 2.0% (PFRCP4.0). These differences can be attributed to the fact that in reality the
pipeissupportedbytwostrips(seeFig.1b),whichleadstoareductioninthebendingstressesonthe
pipewall[12];somethingwhichhasnotbeentakenintoaccountinthesimulationoftheCT.
The MAP tends to slightly overestimate Fpos values with regard to the experimental values as the Cf
value increases, however the maximum difference is 4.8% (PFRCP3.0) and the minimum 4.5%
(PFRCP3.0). These variations can be attributed to the fact that the constitutive model used for the


simulationofthePFRCpostcrackingresponse(Fig.3b)wascalibratedforSFRCs[25].Nevertheless,as
demonstratedin[24],thismodelcanbeusedforconcretewithplasticmacrofibressuchasthoseused
intheexperimentalcampaigncarriedout(Table2).

Asaresultoftheabovecommentsandconsideringthatthevaluesobtained(Table8)arereducedin
comparisonwiththevariabilityofthemechanicalresponseofthePFRC,itcanbesaidthatthecorrelation
betweentheexperimentalandnumericalvaluesissatisfactory.Accordingly,theMAPcanbeemployedas
atoolfortheparametricanalysisofPFRCPswithDiofupto1000mm,aswasdemonstratedforSFRCPsin
[17]and[18].

PROPOSEDDESIGNEQUATIONSFORPFRCPs

Having demonstrated that the MAP is an appropriate tool for the simulation of the mechanical
responseofPFRCPswithDiofupto1000mm,themodelisusedtosimulatethestructuralbehaviourof
PFRCPs with Di between 300 mm and 1000 mm in the CT, considering the same type of plastic
macrofibresusedintheexperimentalcampaign(Table2)andCfvaluesof0.0kg/m3(UCP),2.0kg/m3,4.0
kg/m3,6.0kg/m3and8.0kg/m3.Inthesamevein,simulationofthetensilestrengthresponseofPFRChas
been carried out using the constitutive equation proposed in [25] (Fig. 3b) and Eqs. 3 and 4 for the
calculationoffRm,i asafunctionofCf.TheresultsofFc,cr,FuandFposforthedifferentDiofseriesBandCof
wallthicknessestypifiedinUNE127916[35]areshowninTable9(seriesB,hB)andinTable10(seriesC,
hC).

Table9.NumericalvaluesofFuandFposforthePFRCPswithhoftheseriesB.
Cuantadefibras(Cf) Cf=0.0kg/m3 Cf=2.0kg/m3 Cf=4.0kg/m3 Cf=6.0kg/m3 Cf=8.0kg/m3
Di hB Fcr,c Fu Fpos Fu Fpos Fu Fpos Fu Fpos Fu Fpos
(mm) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m )
2 (kN/m )
2 (kN/m )
2 (kN/m )
2

300 50 141.3 141.3 26.7 141.3 59.3 150.0 90.7 165.3 120.7 180.0 149.3
400 59 111.8 111.8 20.3 111.8 46.0 117.3 70.5 129.0 94.0 140.5 116.3
500 67 93.0 93.0 16.6 93.0 37.4 97.2 57.4 107.4 77.0 117.2 95.2
600 75 80.5 80.5 14.2 80.5 32.0 84.8 49.5 93.5 66.3 102.0 82.3
700 84 74.6 74.6 12.9 74.6 29.1 77.0 45.1 84.9 60.4 91.9 75.1
800 92 68.5 68.5 11.6 68.5 26.5 71.0 41.0 78.0 55.0 85.3 68.6
900 100 63.8 63.8 10.8 63.8 24.6 66.4 37.9 72.8 50.9 79.4 63.4
1000 109 61.2 61.2 10.2 61.2 23.4 63.5 36.1 69.9 48.5 76.0 60.3

Table10.NumericalvaluesofFuandFposforthePFRCPswithhoftheseriesC.
Cuantadefibras(Cf) Cf=0.0kg/m3 Cf=2.0kg/m3 Cf=4.0kg/m3 Cf=6.0kg/m3 Cf=8.0kg/m3
Di hC Fcr,c Fu Fpos Fu Fpos Fu Fpos Fu Fpos Fu Fpos
(mm) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
300 69 252.0 252.0 51.3 252.0 112.3 266.0 170.3 295.7 224.3 322.0 275.0
400 78 185.3 185.3 36.0 185.3 79.3 198.0 120.8 218.0 160.0 237.5 197.0
500 86 146.2 146.2 27.4 146.2 61.0 155.2 93,2 168,2 123.8 183.4 152.6
600 94 122.3 122.3 22.3 122.3 49.8 129,2 76.3 142.3 101.8 154.0 125.8
700 102 106.3 106.3 18.9 106.3 42.6 112.1 65,4 122.4 87.3 133.4 108.1
800 111 96.4 96.4 16.9 96.4 38.1 100.4 58.6 110.5 78.5 120.3 97.1
900 119 87.6 87.6 15.1 87.6 34.2 90.4 52.7 99.6 70.4 108.3 87.6
1000 128 81.9 81.9 14.0 81.9 31.6 84.6 48.8 92.9 65.3 101.9 81.2

Of the results shown in Tables 9 and 10, and the classification set out in Fig. 4, it follows that the
mechanical response of the pipes is type A (Fc,cr = Fu) if Cf 2.0 kg/m3, while for Cf > 2.0 kg/m3 the
responseistypeB(Fc,cr<Fs,cr=Fu),typeC(Fc,cr<Fs,cr<Fpos=Fu)nothavingbeenobservedfortheanalysed
valuesofCf.


Figs.6aand6bdepictFuandFposvaluesasafunctionofDiobtainedusingtheMAPforPFRCPsofseries
B(Table9).TheseshowthatbothFuandFposdecreaseasDiincreases,thisbeingtheexpectedbehaviour
duetothestiffnesslossoftheelement.Moreover,ifDiisfixed,thevalueofFposincreaseswithCfduetothe
fact that in this behaviour regime the two control sections (R and S of Figs. 1 and 2) are completely
crackedandthereforetheirresponsedependsmainlyonthevaluesoffRm,i(whichincreasewithCf).

200 200

(a) Fu,8 =10510Di0,720 (b)
180 180 Fpos,8 =10677Di0,755
Fu,6 =9649Di 0,720
Fpos,6 =9002Di0,762
160 160
Fu,4 =8591Di 0,716
140 140 Fpos,4 =7053Di0,769
F u,2 =7339D i
0,700
120 120 Fpos,2 =4875Di0,779
F (kN/m2)

F (kN/m2)
Fu,0 =7339Di0,700
100 100 Fpos,0 =2430Di0,798
80 80

60 UCP 60
UCP
PFRCP2
40 PFRCP4 40 PFRCP2
PFRCP6 PFRCP4
20 20 PFRCP6
PFRCP8
PFRCP8
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
Di (mm) Di (mm)

Fig.6.Curves(a)FuDiand(b)FposDiobtainednumericallywiththeMAPforPFRCPsofseriesB(Table9).

It is important to emphasise that there is a greater degree of correlation (R2 > 0.99 in all cases)
betweenpoints(F,Di)whentheyarefittedtoanexponentialcurve(Eq.5),thisexpressionbeinghighly
usefulwithregardtothedesignofPFRCPs.

5

ParametersAandBofEq.5dependonthecontrolload(FuorFpos)andfitsatisfactorilytoaquadratic
polynomialswithCfifCf>2.0kg/m3,ascanbeseeninFigs.7a(parameterA)and7b(parameterB).ForCf
2.0kg/m3thevaluesofAFuandBFuareindependentofCfsincetheresponseofthepipesistypeA,and
thereforeFucoincideswithFr,cr.

12000
0,680
AFu =244x101Cf2 +772Cf +5893 (a) BFu =700x103 (b)

10000 0,700
BFu =720x103

0,720
AFu =7340
8000
BFu =162x105Cf2 182x104Cf 669x103
0,740

6000
0,760
AFpos =316x101Cf2 +1284Cf +2431

4000
0,780

2000 BFpos =482x106Cf2 +901x104Cf 797x102
0,800


0 0,820
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Cf (kg/m3) Cf (kg/m3)
Fig.7Curves(a)ACfand(b)BCfforthePFRCPsoftheseriesB(Table9).

ThissamestrategyhasbeenusedforthePFRCPsofseriesC(Table10),theresultsofwhichareshown
inFigs.8aand8bforratiosFDiwithcorrelationcoefficientsR2alsogreaterthan0.99inallcases.Figs.
9aand9bshowtheadjustmentsobtainedforparametersAandB,respectively,ofpipesfromseriesC.
This entire set of equations derived from simulations using the MAP can be presented in a more
compact way, whilst keeping the base formulation of Eq. 5, with a view to systematising a design
methodology.Thus,inthecaseofPFRCPsofseriesB,estimationofFucanbecarriedoutthroughEqs.6a


and6bforthecalculationofAFuandBFu,respectively,whilethedeductionofFposwouldbebasedonEq.7a
forAFposandEq.7bforBFpos.Moreover,forPFRCPsfromseriesC,calculationoftheperimeterAFuwouldbe
carriedoutusingEq.8aandBFu withEq.8b.Lastly,AFposwouldbeobtainedwithEq.9aandBFposwithEq.
9b.

350
350
(a) (b)

300 Fu,8 =76570Di0.965 300 Fpos,8 =87173Di1.017

Fu,6 =71362Di0.965
Fpos,6 =75870Di1.028
250 250
Fu,4 =62807Di0.958
Fpos,4 =62101Di1.042

200 Fu,2 =51149Di0.938 Fpos,2 =44425Di1.056

F (kN/m2)
F (kN/m2)

200
Fu,0 =51149Di0.938 Fpos,0 =24113Di1.086
150 150

100 100
UCP UCP
PFRCP2
PFRCP2
50 PFRCP4
50 PFRCP4
PFRCP6 PFRCP6
PFRCP8 PFRCP8
0 0
0
300 600 900 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
D (mm) i Di (mm)

Fig.8.Curves(a)FuDiand(b)FposDiobtainednumericallywiththeMAPforPFRCPsofseriesC(Table10).

120000
0,920
BFu = 938x103
0,940
100000 AFpos =344x101Cf2 +9153Cf +24948 BFu = 965x103
0,960

80000 0,980 BFu =162x105Cf2 197x104Cf 905x103

1,000
60000 AFu =51149
AFu =403Cf2 +8272Cf +36205 1,020
40000 1,040

1,060
20000
1,080 BFpos =679x106Cf2 +137x104Cf 108x102

0 1,100

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Cf (kg/m3) Cf (kg/m3)
Fig.9.Curves(a)ACfand(b)BCfforthePFRCPsoftheseriesC(Table10).

PFRCPs of series B
7340 2 /
6a
244 10 772 5983 2 /


700 10 2 /

162 10 182 10 669 10 / 6 / 6b
720 10 6 /

316 10 1284 2431 7a

482 10 901 10 797 10 7b


Intheabsenceofothermethodsintechnicalliterature,Eqs.69areavaluabletoolforthedesignof
PFRCPs.ThenormaldesignprocessforaFRCPconsistsofobtaininganestimationofCfnecessarytoreach


a specific strength class (see Fig. 1 and Table 1) having fixed previously a Di (derived from a previous
hydraulic calculation) and a h (established in local and/or national standards). With this proposed
method,areliableCfvaluecanbededucedwithouttheneedtousetheCTasanindirectdesignmethod,
butratherusingitasaverificationandcontrolmethod.ThisdesignmethodisvalidforPFRCPswithDi
between300and1000mmwiththicknessesofseriesBandCandCfnogreaterthan10kg/m3,thislatter
beingthemaximumtechnicalvalueforthisapplication.

PFRCPs of series C

51149 2 /
8a
403 8272 36205 2 /

983 10 2 /
162 10 197 10 905 10 / 6 / 8b

965 10 6 /



344 10 9153 24948 9a



679 10 137 10 108 10 9b

APPLICATIONOFTHEPROPOSEDDESIGNEQUATIONS

TheproposeddesignmethodbasedonEqs.69hasbeenusedtofindoutwhichstrengthclasses(see
Table1)canbereachedbyusingfibresasthesolereinforcementmaterialforconcrete,andconsideringCf
values8.0kg/m3.Accordingly,designtableshavebeendrawnupforPFRCPscontainingthesamefibres
usedintheexperimentalcampaign(seeTable2).Inadditiontoothereconomicandstrategiccriteriafor
each plant, these tables can be used as a tool to facilitate the choice between a SBRCP and a PFRCP in
accordancewiththetargetstrengthclass.Table11showstheresultsobtainedforPFRCPsofseriesBand
Table12showsthoseforseriesC.

Table11.StrengthclassesachievedinPFRCPsoftheseriesBwithCf8.0kg/m3(fibresTable2).

Di(mm) Cf=2kg/m3 Cf=4kg/m3 Cf=6kg/m3 Cf=8kg/m3

300 C60 C135 C135 C180

400 C60 C90 C90 C135

500 C60 C90 C90
600 C60 C90 C90

700 C60 C60 C90

800 C60 C60 C60
900 C60 C60

1000 C60 C60

The results presented in Table 11 highlight that, for Di>600 mm, moderate strength classes (C60 y
C90)canbereachedwithCfcomprisedbetween2.0kg/m3and6.0kg/m3withouttheneedtouserebars
inPFRCPsofseriesB.Likewise,fromtheresultsgatheredinTable12itcanbeobservedthatPFRCcan
serveasatotalsubstituteofrebars,andachievehigherstrengthclasses(C135andC180)inpipeswith
Di600mmofseriesCbyusingvaluesofCfnogreaterthan8.0kg/m3.
Theseresultsareparticularlyinteresting,giventhatthisrangeofdiametersandstrengthclassesare
commonplaceindrainagepipelines.Theycanthereforebeanattractivesolutionfordealingwithspecific
strengthrequirements,and,aboveall,foravoidingproblemsrelatingtodurabilityandmaintenancecosts.
Thislatterpointisparticularlycrucialincitydrainagesystems,wherecarryingoutrepairworkonpublic
roadsusuallyleadstosignificantdisruptionstotheirnormaloperation.
Tables 11 and 12 have also been conceived as an indicative tool, enabling the establishment of the
applicationboundariesforPFRCsinpipelines.Whatismore,withregardtobettermaterialoptimisation,


CfvaluescanbeevaluatedbymeansEqs.69(specificationsof0.5kg/m3areusuallyusedforthedosages
ofthistypeoffibres).

Table12.StrengthclassesachievedinPFRCPsoftheseriesCwithCf8.0kg/m3(fibresTable2).

Di(mm) Cf=2kg/m3 Cf=4kg/m3 Cf=6kg/m3 Cf=8kg/m3
300 C135 C180 C180 C180

400 C90 C180 C180 C180

500 C90 C135 C135 C180
600 C60 C90 C135 C135

700 C60 C90 C90 C90

800 C60 C90 C90
900 C60 C90 C90

1000 C60 C90 C90

CONCLUSIONS

InthisarticleanexperimentalcampaigninwhichPFRCPswithDiequalto1000mmwereproduced
andtestedusingCThasbeenpresented.TheresultsobtainedhavebeenusedtoverifythattheMAPisan
appropriatetoolforsimulatingtheCTforthistypeofpipes.Inthesamevein,thefollowingisobserved:
TheMAPtendstounderestimatetheloadFu(Fumaximum8.0%)andoverestimatetheloadFpos(Fpos
minimum4.5%).Theseresultsarereasonableatthelevelofnumericalsimulation,takingintoaccount
thegreatnumberofvariablesinvolved,aswellasthelevelofdispersionsthatthetensilestrengthof
FRCusuallypresents.
ThevaluesofFuandFposforaDibetween300mmand1000mm,ofseriesBandCofUNE127196[35],
show R2 coefficients close to the unit when adjusted to exponential curves of the type F = ADiB.
Likewise,thecoefficientsAandBaresatisfactorilyadaptedtoCfwithsecondgradepolynomials.Allof
these adjustments result in a set of equations (Eqs. 69), which are put forward as a design tool for
PFRCPsandfacilitatethedesignerinhis/herchoiceofaCfvaluethatwillenablethetargetstrength
classtobereached.Theseequationsareparticularisedforthetypeoffibresusedintheexperimental
campaigncarriedout,however,theycanbeusedforfibresofagreaterperformance,therebyobtaining
resultsonthesideofsafety,or,adjustingAandBonthebasisofcurvesfRm,1CfandfRm,4fRm,1ofother
fibresavailableinthemarket.
OnthebasisofEqs69,anumberofdesigntableshavebeenputforwardforPFRCPswiththicknesses
ofsetB(Table11)andsetC(Table12)whichreflecttheboundariesusedforPFRcontainingthefibres
used in the experimental campaign carried out. In particular, it is emphasised that higher strength
classes can be reached, and traditional reinforcement substituted,with pipes ofup to 600 mm in Di.
Moreover,itisprovedthatPFRCisanalternativetorebarsinpipeswithDigreaterthan600mmfor
averagestrengthclasses,whicharecommonplaceindrainagefacilities.

Currently, further experimental campaigns are being carried out with a view to analysing the
possibilityofusingmixedconfigurationsofreinforcement(steelrebarsandfibres).Itishopedthatthis
willexpandthescopeofPFRCtopipeswithDigreaterthan1000mm.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorsofthisdocumentwishtoshowtheirgratitudefortheeconomicsupportreceivedthrough
theResearchProjectBIA201017478:Constructionprocessesbymeansoffibrereinforcedconcretes.
Likewise,Prof.AntonioD.deFigueiredowishestothanktheCAPESCoordenaodeAperfeioamento
dePessoaldeNvelSuperiorfortheirsupportinawardinghimthepostdoctoralperioddevelopedatthe
UPC,whichmadepossiblehisparticipationinthisresearchwork.
Finally, Renata C. Escariz is grateful to the Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de So Paulo
(FAPESP)fortheirsupportinawardingherthepostgraduatescholarship.

References

[1] American Concrete Pipe Association (ACPA). Concrete pipe technology handbook: A presentation of historical and current
stateoftheartdesignandinstallationmethodology.3thpr.Vienna,VA;January2005.
[2] delaFuenteA,AguadoA,MolinsC.Comprehensiveoptimaldesignforconcretepipes.HormignyAcero2011;62(260):7791.
[InSpanish].
[3] Violas B. Applications and advances of the MIVES methodology in multicriteria decision analysis. PhD thesis, Universitat
PolitcnicadeCatalunya,UPC,Barcelona(Spain),2011.
[4] EN1916:2002.Concretepipesandfittings,unreinforced,steelfibreandreinforced.2002.
[5] BSEN1916:2002.Concretepipesandfittings,unreinforced,steelfibreandreinforced.2002.
[6] UNEEN1916:2008.Concretepipesandfittings,unreinforced,steelfibreandreinforced.2008.
[7] ABNTNBR8890:2007.Tubodeconcreto,deseocircular,paraguaspluviaiseesgotossanitrios.2007.
[8] AS4139:2003.Fibrereinforcedconcretepipesandfittings.
[9] FraayALA,VenstermansJ,NemegeerD.Berekeningvanstaalvezelbetonbuizen.CivieleTechniek1983,38(1).
[10] PedersenEJ.Fiberreinforcedconcretepipes.UNICONbetonI/S.December1992.
[11] RamosMF.Anliseexperimentaldetubosdeconcretoreforadocomfibrasdeao.UniversidadeEstadualdeCampias,UEC,
Campinas(Brazil),2002.
[12] Haktanir T, Ari K, Altun F, Karahan O. A comparative experimental investigation of concrete, reinforcedconcrete and steel
concretepipesunderthreeedgebearingtest.Constbuildmat2007;21(8):170208.
[13] FigueiredoAD,ChamaNetoPJ.Mechanicalperformanceevaluationofpipes.RevistaDAE2008;178:349.
[14] FigueiredoA,delaFuenteA,AguadoA,MolinsC,ChamaNetoPJ.Steelfibrereinforcedconcretepipes.Part1:technological
analysisofthemechanicalbehaviour.RevistaRIEM2011;5(1):111.
[15] Campos R. Anlise comparativa de desempenho mecnico de tubos de concreto reforados com macrofibras polimricas e
fibrasdeao.MaterThesis.UniversidadedeSoPaulo,USP,SoPaulo(Brazil),2011.
[16] delaFuenteA.Newmethodologyforthedesignofstructuralconcretepipes.PhDthesis,UniversitatPolitcnicadeCatalunya,
UPC,Barcelona(Spain),2011.
[17] de la Fuente A, Figueiredo A, Aguado A, Molins C, Chama Neto PJ. Experimentation and numerical simulation of steel fibre
reinforcedconcretepipes.MaterConstruct2011;61(302):27588.
[18] delaFuenteA,CamposR,FigueiredoA,MolinsC,AguadoA.Anewdesignmethodforsteelfibrereinforcedconcretepipes.
Constbuildmat2012;30:54755.
[19] Silva JL, El Debs MK, Beck AT. Reliability evaluation of reinforced concrete pipes in crack opening limit state. RIEM
2008;1(4):31430.
[20] Walraven J. High performance fibre reinforced concrete: progress in knowledge and design codes. Mater Struct
2009;42(9):124760.
[21] diPriscoM.FRC:Structuralapplicationsandstandards.MaterStruct2009;42(9):116971.
[22] Pedersen EJ. Calculation of FRC pipes based on the fictious crack model. Department of Structural Engineering. Technical
UniversityofDenmark,1995.
[23] delaFuenteA,AguadoA,MolinsC,ArmengouJ.Numericalmodelfortheanalysisuptofailureofprecastconcretesections.
CompStruct2012.[AcceptedinCompandStruc].doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.04.007.
[24] Blanco A, Pujadas P, de la Fuente A, Aguado A. Comparative analysis of constitutive models of fibre reinforced concrete.
HormignyAcero2010;61(256):83100.
[25] VandewalleL.etal.Testanddesignmethodsforsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete.designmethod.MaterStruct2003;36:560
7.
[26] BarrosJAO,FigueirasJA.FlexuralbehaviourofSFRC:Testingandmodelling.ASCEJMaterCivilEng1999;11(4):3319.
[27] LaranjeiraF.Designorientedconstitutivemodelforsteelfiberreinforcedconcrete.PhDthesis,UPC,Barcelona(Spain),2010.
[28] Heger FJ. A theory for the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete pipes. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Sanitary
Engineering,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,MIT,Massachusetts(USA),1962.
[29] ChiaiaB,FantilliAP,ValliniP.EvaluationofminimumreinforcementratioinFRCmembersandapplicationtotunnellinings.
MaterStruct2009;42(3):33951.
[30] ASTMC39/C39M09a.Standardtestmethodforcompressivestrengthofcylindricalconcretespecimens.2009.
[31] EN 14651:2005. Test method for metallic fibered concrete. Measuring the flexural tensile strength (limit of proportionality
(LOP),residual).2005.
[32] Barros JAO, Cunha VMCF, Ribeiro AF, Antunes JAB. Postcracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete. Mater Struct
2005;38:4756.
[33] delaFuenteA,FigueiredoA,AguadoA,MolinsC,ChamaNetoPJ.Steelfiberreinforcedconcretepipes.Part2:numericalmodel
tosimulatethecrushingtest.RevistaRIEM2011;5(1):1225.
[34] Pujadas P, Blanco A, de la Fuente A, Aguado A. Cracking behavior of FRC slabs with traditional reinforcement. Mater Struct
2012;45(5):70725.
[35] UNE 127916. Concrete pipes and fittings, unreinforced, steel fibre and reinforced. Spanish adaptation of the EN 1916:2002.
2004.

View publication stats